I've mulled over this for a week or so. I've been doing some travelling and taking a break from all things GSK - It's always a good idea to try and wipe the stench of GSK from oneself, particularly after many years of writing about their abhorrent behaviour.
The following is a case that I'm familiar with as I have wrote about it numerous times on this blog. This particular Paxil induced suicide trial has been dragging on for a number of years. GSK have argued that Stewart Dolin took a generic version of Paxil made by a different company, therefore they are not responsible/liable for any injuries caused by the said drug. The judge told them that the generic version side effects, marketed by Mylan, was, indeed, still their (GSK's) drug (in essence) because evidence provided shows that they knew about the adult suicide link in taking Paxil and failed to warn the generic manufacturers about this link. In turn, the judge told the widow of Stewart Dolin, Wendy, that if she was to file a lawsuit then it should be against GSK and not Mylan.
After many years of targeting the Dolin family, GSK's attorneys then targeted the expert witnesses for Dolin. Now, it appears that the initial ruling (Mylan are not responsible) which was ruled over two years ago, is the basis for GSK's latest argument.
According to the legal subscription based website, Law 360, GSK now want the jury to know that Stewart Dolin took a product marketed by another pharmaceutical company and that they (GSK) made no profit from the sale of this particular generic version.
Okay,
Here's my take.
GSK want the jury to know that Stewart didn't take their drug, he took Mylan's.
The Judge has previously ruled that they (GSK) are still responsible for any updates on the labelling and that that information be relayed to all the generic labels too.
So, he basically told them, your drug, your responsibility to inform the generic manufacturers.
These are my thoughts - I have no legal background.
GSK want the jury to know that Stewart took a product that was not manufactured by them, ergo, they made no profit from it.
This will, supposedly, put an element of doubt in some of the jury members.
Secondly, if the Judge does a u-turn and allows GSK to inform the jury that Stewart took a Mylan product then they (GSK) could possibly make Stewart's widow (Wendy) a settlement offer...but a much lower one because they will argue, it wasn't our drug. They want this evidence submitted to the jury for these two reaons.
1. To put doubt in the jurors minds.
2. To offer a settlement much lower than a settlement would be had Stewart had taken their own brand.
It's kind of like a last ditch attempt at saving money.
They also want to blindside the jury with documents that are either irrelevant or hearsay, some of these documents will see that evidence supporting Dolin's claim (incriminating evidence) will have been omitted - so, they wish to provide cherry-picked documents to the jury in pretty much in the same way that they cherry-pick clinical trials regarding Paxil.
Some of the documents they wish to provide to the jury are excessively large - the judge has already ruled that they can't do this but they still wish to ignore this ruling. One of the documents, for example, is almost 600 pages in length! - This is not because they feel the apparent evidence contained within is strong enough for the jury to rule in their favour, it's simply page after page of nonsense designed to confuse the jury. When you get a confused jury, you get certain members of that jury who will get pissed off, bored and will just want an end to it all - ergo, the debating of jury members (deliberation) will see certain jury members not willing to speak up or offer opinion because, well, because they will just be totally confused by it all. So, being confused, bored and pissed off, jurors are more than likely to "go with the flow" - GSK will be hoping that the "flow" is running their way.
They know they are pissing off the judge but, as I say, it's a last ditch attempt at saving a couple or so million dollars. It's incredible when you think that GSK have already paid millions of dollars to their legal team that they are trying to penny-pinch here. They really have nothing to lose by opposing any ruling by the judge in this case - they know, pretty much, that they cannot win so they are trying desperately to reduce the amount they will have to pay - it's a huge risk because every attorney should know that you never piss off a judge - it is, seemingly, a risk that GSK are willing to take. When all else fails, throw in the kitchen sink.
Anyway, these are my thoughts and, as I said, I am not an attorney. I have, however, read a lot of John Grisham :-) - I could be way off the mark - it could just boil down to the fact that GSK are a walking, talking sociopath and it would be a fruitless exercise to try and get inside the mind of one of those, right? Let's face it, they've never once apologised for putting children and adolescents at risk of suicide with Paxil so why would they be overly concerned about an adult?
Dolin is represented by BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C. and RAPOPORT LAW OFFICES, P.C.
GSK is represented by KING & SPALDING LLP and DENTONS LLP.
Bob Fiddaman.
Dolin back stories.
No comments: